It's a dangerous game the White House and the Republican's are playing... if they try to pawn it off
on the CIA... you can bet they'll leak like a sieve about the administrations behaviour.
They're really unhappy with how they were taking raw intelligence from the cia and then interpreting it themselves. They had no idea what they were looking at other than what it was at face value.
The CIA can get tons of info, but if it's not vetted and the souces checked out thoroughly... your intel is junk.
That's why they have operatives like Plame working for them.
It's a dangerous game the White House and the Republican's are playing... if they try to pawn it off
on the CIA... you can bet they'll leak like a sieve about the administrations behaviour.
They're really unhappy with how they were taking raw intelligence from the cia and then interpreting it themselves. They had no idea what they were looking at other than what it was at face value.
The CIA can get tons of info, but if it's not vetted and the souces checked out thoroughly... your intel is junk.
That's why they have operatives like Plame working for them.
This has occurred to me as well. Tenet has already made it pretty clear that he won't be made the fall guy for screwing up Iraq, and lord only knows what he knows, or could find out.
What motivation would the CIA have to encourage a war with Iraq? If they were truly worried they would have operatives on the ground and just sabotage any viable weapons programs that they knew about.
Where as the Adminstration was very interested in taking out Saddam from the beginning... they had every motive to run with whatever intel they had... however slight.
It contradicts Dr. Kay's testimony that "no analysts were forced to cook the books," "that the intelligence community unintentionally misled the President," and surely on other levels as well.
If Dr. Kay was sworn to tell the truth today and didn't the Democrats should go after him.
If they do not, then I will be forced to conclude that his testimony was acccurate.
Also, let's not forget previous statements by members of the admin:
-Powell, Feb 2001
So according to Secretary Powell, the sanctions kept SH from developing WMD.
Yet, SH defied UN inspectors, had no records of weapon destruction, etc.
Dr. Kay, The Man, stated that the world is safer now than before SH's downfall, that Saddam was working towards developing WMDs (specifically missiles of greater than allowed range; he mentioned others).
What do you think voters are going to remember/believe this November?
I'm sure that Dr. Kay is going to write/is writing a book on this whole issue.
You know, kay also claimed that samples of CCHF were damning, even though it's never been weaponized by anyone on earth and it is very common in Iraq and the rest of the middle east.
Quote:
What do you think voters are going to remember/believe this November?
That watching britney spears get her hair did is a good way to spend an hour.
The Democrats have a vested interest in proving that the President lied on the issue of WMD. I saw the testimony that Dr. Kay presented to the committee and it was extremely effective. It will be all over the emerging right wing of the media and people will see it, and their opinions will be formed therefrom.
The only political tactic that I see (I'm not a political scientist, mind) is to remove Dr. Kay's credibility. If Dr. Kay was not accurate in what he said today, then the Democrats must initiate perjury procedings against Dr. Kay.
If the Democrats do not, then Dr. Kay's testimony must stand. If it stands, then the election to defeat G.W. Bush is over no matter who the Democrats nominate.
I'm serious; Dr. Kay's testimony was very watchable and very, very credible.
It was far easier to follow than Mr. Hersh's article.
I'm serious; Dr. Kay's testimony was very watchable and very, very credible.
It was far easier to follow than Mr. Hersh's article.
So credibility is based on what's easier to follow, not on substance?
Read the Hersh articles. If you have a problem with anything they say, do some research on it. Much of what they say can be corroborated by other sources.
I'm serious; Dr. Kay's testimony was very watchable and very, very credible.
It was far easier to follow than Mr. Hersh's article.
Let me apologoze for not really giving you credit for the point you bring up here: that voters like simple ideas.
I totally agree. The vast majority of people do not want to think too hard about this stuff and would prefer to form their opinions around basic concepts, tus allowing them to stucture their world views.
That is something this administration had excelled at. Simple, emotive concepts are immediately convincing, while complex reality requires more energy.
If Dr. Kay was sworn to tell the truth today and didn't the Democrats should go after him.
If they do not, then I will be forced to conclude that his testimony was acccurate.
Aries 1B
I just provided something that contradicts what he said today. Information that has been known since at least October...about how the administration pressured the intelligence community in many ways. Come on?
My understanding is, Kay is saying there was ample evidence of WoMD programs and some elementary facilities for producing them. But that stockpiles of the WMDs themselves were probably removed from Iraq prior to the war. (See Syria). It's interesting that Kay points to evidence that Saddam actually gave orders to use chemical shells should the American lead Coalition Forces cross a particular defensive junction, but these weapons were never used. It's rather disturbing that these shells are yet to be discovered.
Blue Shift : you are not in the right place, to make comments about how mods should do their job.
Maybe so. But it seems some people, because of their political views seems to receive less scrutiny, while others, of different political views receive more. And I speak from personal experience. Bunge (and Shawn), are just the most blatant examples.
So is the Bush argument now going to be WE WERE FOOLED BY THE CIA???? I don't think so. Then they would have to admit that in some way they were wrong.
They don't ever admit they were wrong. In fact even when they know they're wrong they say the facts prove them right. Bush is so out of touch with reality...
Let me apologoze for not really giving you credit for the point you bring up here: that voters like simple ideas.
I totally agree. The vast majority of people do not want to think too hard about this stuff and would prefer to form their opinions around basic concepts, tus allowing them to stucture their world views.
That is something this administration had excelled at. Simple, emotive concepts are immediately convincing, while complex reality requires more energy.
This is why the BS wins out in the end.
*All* two-term administrations excell at simple, emotionally based selling points.
Now, how does the Democratic Nominee, without sending me back to Mr. Hersh (I'm 25% of the way through the article btw) and to other (to me) obscure, complexity-ridden URLs, *simply* and *credibly* convince me that the President of the United States *knew* that there were no WMD in Iraq before we went to war?
Answer that and the Democrats *might* have a chance (and you should be able to get a well paid position in the Kerry Campaign ).
Comments
on the CIA... you can bet they'll leak like a sieve about the administrations behaviour.
They're really unhappy with how they were taking raw intelligence from the cia and then interpreting it themselves. They had no idea what they were looking at other than what it was at face value.
The CIA can get tons of info, but if it's not vetted and the souces checked out thoroughly... your intel is junk.
That's why they have operatives like Plame working for them.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's a dangerous game the White House and the Republican's are playing... if they try to pawn it off
on the CIA... you can bet they'll leak like a sieve about the administrations behaviour.
They're really unhappy with how they were taking raw intelligence from the cia and then interpreting it themselves. They had no idea what they were looking at other than what it was at face value.
The CIA can get tons of info, but if it's not vetted and the souces checked out thoroughly... your intel is junk.
That's why they have operatives like Plame working for them.
This has occurred to me as well. Tenet has already made it pretty clear that he won't be made the fall guy for screwing up Iraq, and lord only knows what he knows, or could find out.
Where as the Adminstration was very interested in taking out Saddam from the beginning... they had every motive to run with whatever intel they had... however slight.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
*snip*
It contradicts Dr. Kay's testimony that "no analysts were forced to cook the books," "that the intelligence community unintentionally misled the President," and surely on other levels as well.
If Dr. Kay was sworn to tell the truth today and didn't the Democrats should go after him.
If they do not, then I will be forced to conclude that his testimony was acccurate.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by giant
Also, let's not forget previous statements by members of the admin:
-Powell, Feb 2001
So according to Secretary Powell, the sanctions kept SH from developing WMD.
Yet, SH defied UN inspectors, had no records of weapon destruction, etc.
Dr. Kay, The Man, stated that the world is safer now than before SH's downfall, that Saddam was working towards developing WMDs (specifically missiles of greater than allowed range; he mentioned others).
What do you think voters are going to remember/believe this November?
I'm sure that Dr. Kay is going to write/is writing a book on this whole issue.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Yet, SH defied UN inspectors, had no records of weapon destruction, etc.
No records? I guess your right if you live with Bush in the universe where Saddam "did not let us in" to do inspections, as he stated yesterday.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040127-3.html
Dr. Kay
You know, kay also claimed that samples of CCHF were damning, even though it's never been weaponized by anyone on earth and it is very common in Iraq and the rest of the middle east.
What do you think voters are going to remember/believe this November?
That watching britney spears get her hair did is a good way to spend an hour.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
If they do not, then I will be forced to conclude that his testimony was acccurate.
Does this even qualify as reasoning?
Originally posted by giant
Does this even qualify as reasoning?
The Democrats have a vested interest in proving that the President lied on the issue of WMD. I saw the testimony that Dr. Kay presented to the committee and it was extremely effective. It will be all over the emerging right wing of the media and people will see it, and their opinions will be formed therefrom.
The only political tactic that I see (I'm not a political scientist, mind) is to remove Dr. Kay's credibility. If Dr. Kay was not accurate in what he said today, then the Democrats must initiate perjury procedings against Dr. Kay.
If the Democrats do not, then Dr. Kay's testimony must stand. If it stands, then the election to defeat G.W. Bush is over no matter who the Democrats nominate.
I'm serious; Dr. Kay's testimony was very watchable and very, very credible.
It was far easier to follow than Mr. Hersh's article.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by Aries 1B
I'm serious; Dr. Kay's testimony was very watchable and very, very credible.
It was far easier to follow than Mr. Hersh's article.
So credibility is based on what's easier to follow, not on substance?
Read the Hersh articles. If you have a problem with anything they say, do some research on it. Much of what they say can be corroborated by other sources.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
I'm serious; Dr. Kay's testimony was very watchable and very, very credible.
It was far easier to follow than Mr. Hersh's article.
Let me apologoze for not really giving you credit for the point you bring up here: that voters like simple ideas.
I totally agree. The vast majority of people do not want to think too hard about this stuff and would prefer to form their opinions around basic concepts, tus allowing them to stucture their world views.
That is something this administration had excelled at. Simple, emotive concepts are immediately convincing, while complex reality requires more energy.
This is why the BS wins out in the end.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
If Dr. Kay was sworn to tell the truth today and didn't the Democrats should go after him.
If they do not, then I will be forced to conclude that his testimony was acccurate.
Aries 1B
I just provided something that contradicts what he said today. Information that has been known since at least October...about how the administration pressured the intelligence community in many ways. Come on?
Originally posted by Scott
No
Even your simple lies are obviously wrong.
You probably believe that BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is an anti-gun movie.
Originally posted by bunge
Even your simple lies are obviously wrong.
You probably believe that BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is an anti-gun movie.
I really hope the mods do something about Bunge's comment here.
Originally posted by bunge
Even your simple lies are obviously wrong.
You probably believe that BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is an anti-gun movie.
Unnecessary and agains the posting guidelines.
Blue Shift : you are not in the right place, to make comments about how mods should do their job.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Unnecessary and agains the posting guidelines.
Blue Shift : you are not in the right place, to make comments about how mods should do their job.
Maybe so. But it seems some people, because of their political views seems to receive less scrutiny, while others, of different political views receive more. And I speak from personal experience. Bunge (and Shawn), are just the most blatant examples.
So is the Bush argument now going to be WE WERE FOOLED BY THE CIA???? I don't think so. Then they would have to admit that in some way they were wrong.
They don't ever admit they were wrong. In fact even when they know they're wrong they say the facts prove them right. Bush is so out of touch with reality...
Originally posted by giant
Let me apologoze for not really giving you credit for the point you bring up here: that voters like simple ideas.
I totally agree. The vast majority of people do not want to think too hard about this stuff and would prefer to form their opinions around basic concepts, tus allowing them to stucture their world views.
That is something this administration had excelled at. Simple, emotive concepts are immediately convincing, while complex reality requires more energy.
This is why the BS wins out in the end.
*All* two-term administrations excell at simple, emotionally based selling points.
Now, how does the Democratic Nominee, without sending me back to Mr. Hersh (I'm 25% of the way through the article btw) and to other (to me) obscure, complexity-ridden URLs, *simply* and *credibly* convince me that the President of the United States *knew* that there were no WMD in Iraq before we went to war?
Answer that and the Democrats *might* have a chance (and you should be able to get a well paid position in the Kerry Campaign
Aries 1B